This case involved criminal charges against Bryan Coffman and others for mail fraud, wire fraud, and securities fraud under the Securities Exchange Act, stemming from alleged misrepresentations in soliciting investors for an oil and gas drilling business with operations involving Canadian sales offices and investors. The defendant moved to dismiss certain counts, arguing that the Supreme Court's decision in Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd. barred prosecution because the scheme occurred abroad and the statutes lack extraterritorial reach. The court denied the motion as to the mail and wire fraud counts, reasoning that those statutes focus on the use of U.S. mail and interstate wires rather than the location of the fraudulent scheme or victims. As to the securities fraud count, the court denied the motion without prejudice as premature, permitting the defendant to renew it after the government's case-in-chief to allow further factual development on whether the transactions qualified as domestic.
This case involves loans totaling over $2 million made by Fifth Third Bank to Robert Waxman and Vandalay Racing, LLC, which were guaranteed by Robert Waxman, Debra Waxman, and Vandalay. Fifth Third sued for breach after the loans went into default, and the bank moved for partial summary judgment. The court granted the motion, awarding the bank specific judgment amounts against the defendants jointly and severally plus daily interest, because the defendants had admitted signing the loan and guaranty documents, failing to make required payments, and defaulting, with no genuine disputes of material fact or counterclaims raised. The court rejected the defendants' mitigation defense, finding no evidence that the bank's actions to protect collateral were unreasonable or inconsistent with the agreements.
In Sparkman v. Thompson, plaintiffs Phillip Sparkman and Ralph Dyer, Knott County employees who supported Thompson's opponent in the 2006 election for Judge Executive, alleged that Thompson terminated Sparkman and issued warnings and laid off Dyer due to their political activities, violating their First Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Thompson moved for summary judgment, arguing the employment decisions were not politically motivated, while plaintiffs sought partial summary judgment claiming sufficient evidence of retaliation. The court denied both motions, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding whether there was a substantial connection between the plaintiffs' political support and the adverse employment actions, and that neither party had met the burden for summary judgment under the applicable standards for political retaliation claims.
This case was a class action lawsuit brought by owners of oil and gas interests in Kentucky against Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C., NiSource Inc., and Columbia Energy Group, alleging breach of contract, fraud, civil conspiracy, and related claims concerning underpayment of royalties, improper deductions for post-production expenses, misrepresentations on royalty statements, and sales of gas below market value under certain predecessor contracts. After providing notice to class members, considering objections, and conducting a fairness hearing, the court approved the settlement agreement under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) as fair, reasonable, and adequate. The court also approved the plan of allocation, which distributes settlement funds based on lease type, duration, interest proportion, gas volume produced from 1992 to 2009, and a weighting formula, as well as class counsel's motion for attorney's fees. The complaint was dismissed with prejudice, with the court retaining jurisdiction to administer and enforce the settlement.
In Bentley v. Thompson, three former Knott County employees sued the county and its Judge-Executive Randy Thompson under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging they were laid off in retaliation for supporting Thompson's opponent in the 2006 election and, in one case, testifying before a grand jury about misappropriation of funds, in violation of their First Amendment rights. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the layoffs were due to budget shortfalls and not political reasons. The court denied the motion, finding that the plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence of a causal connection between their protected conduct and the layoffs, including statements from officials and inconsistencies in the defendants' explanations, creating genuine issues of material fact that require a trial.
This case involves minority shareholders suing Goose Creek Energy, Inc., its related holding company, officers, and affiliated entities for self-dealing transactions, mismanagement of coal mining operations, failure to issue stock certificates or pay dividends, and lack of corporate transparency. The court ruled on motions to dismiss, summary judgment, and related procedural motions, granting dismissal of some claims including certain derivative fiduciary duty claims under Kentucky statutes for failure to follow procedural rules such as Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.1, unjust enrichment claims against individual defendants, and other claims against specific parties, while denying dismissal of unjust enrichment claims against the corporate defendants and some accounting and fiduciary claims. The plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment was denied. These outcomes rested on clarifying the plaintiffs' stock ownership, identifying which claims applied to which defendants, and distinguishing between direct and derivative claims.
